House OKs permanent ban on mining 1 million acres around Grand Canyon

WASHINGTON – The House voted 236-185 Wednesday to permanently ban uranium mining on just over 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon, on a largely party line vote in which each side accused the other of fear-mongering.

Republicans said the bill would do little to protect the Grand Canyon while killing mining jobs and making the U.S. reliant on other countries – some hostile – for uranium for our power and weapons.

But Democrats said the real threat is to the contamination threat the mining poses to a popular natural treasure and to residents of the area, including tribes that live in and around the canyon. In a news conference after the vote, they called it a major step toward safeguarding spiritual and cultural lands.

“In 2019, our Havasupai voices were heard after 30 years,” said Carletta Tilousi, a councilwoman for the Havasupai Tribe, said after the vote.

The victory lap came hours after Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Prescott, blasted the bill during House debate as a threat to national security and to northern Arizona’s environment and economy. He claimed the bill would gut up to 4,000 jobs and cost the state $29 billion in economic activity.

“This has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon. This has everything to do with monopolization and removing part of the segment that we promised future generations,” Gosar said.

Gosar also accused Democrats of using Native American tribes and the public as “pawns” by suggesting that the bill would affect the park itself.

“It’s sad when we use them as pawns,” Gosar said on the floor of the House. “When we have a press conference and they don’t even know what they’re coming to the press conference for. That’s sad. America, wake up.”

The bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, called Gosar disrespectful for suggesting tribes that had spent decades fighting new uranium mines in the region did not know what was at stake.

“To make those comments is not only insulting to all of us, but particularly mean to the people who have been fighting this fight for so long,” Grijalva said.

He rejected arguments that the bill would hurt Arizona’s mining industry, saying it is time to stop “rehashing the same worn-out arguments.”

-Cronkite News video by Heather Cumberledge

“The idea that we need to mine around the Grand Canyon to meet our energy needs is false,” Grijalva said during debate. “There is ample data to show it, and national security and nuclear nonproliferation experts have routinely raised the alarm this fear mongering about supplies is based on fantasy.”

Grijalva was joined by Arizona Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick of Tucson, Tom O’Halleran of Sedona and Greg Stanton of Phoenix, in cheering the proposal as a way to protect the Colorado River. Grijalva pointed to mines on both the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon that he said contaminated millions of gallons of water before they produced ore.

Former Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar in 2012 imposed a 20-year moratorium on new uranium and other hardrock mining permits 355,000 acres in the Kaibab National Forest, more than 600,000 acres owned by the Bureau of Land Management, and nearly 24,000 acres where ownership is split between private owners and the federal government.

The House bill would make that moratorium permanent, if it is passed by the Senate and signed into law by the president. Critics called both steps unlikely, but Grijalva said Wednesday he is optimistic about the bill’s chances in the Senate.

Critics include Mohave County Supervisor Buster Johnson, who said he sees no negative impacts from uranium mining on the area – but a big downside from not mining.

“People want to talk about climate change and carbon footprints. Nuclear reactors are carbon-free, and bring a lot of inexpensive power that people have come to rely on,” he said.

Johnson, who has testified previously before committees on the bill, said uranium mining in the Grand Canyon is vital to national security and clean energy development.

“We have the richest uranium deposits here in Arizona,” he said. “Without being able to mine that, we’re totally dependent upon foreign uranium to run our nuclear reactors and our ships at sea and all the things that we need for our military.”

But Kevin Dahl, Arizona senior program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, said there is too much at stake in mining that close to the Grand Canyon to even take the chance.

“The risk is too great. Mining companies have forever said, ‘There will be no impact,’ and, ‘We’ll clean this up,’” Dahl said.

Money to burn: Forest Service wildfire fund ends its year in the black

Published Oct. 25, 2019 on Cronkite News.

WASHINGTON – For the first time in nine years, the U.S. Forest Service ended the fiscal year without depleting its fire suppression budget and having to borrow money from other projects to continue fighting wildfires.

Experts credit cooler and wetter weather that helped suppress wildfires around the country this year, and said they expect coming years will again see more costly firefighting operations.

But they also hope that the service may have turned a corner by ending this year in the black, just as a new funding formula takes effect that should prevent such “fire borrowing” in the future.

“I think it’s good news from a lot of perspectives that they’re ending up in the black this year and didn’t have fire borrowing,” said Zander Evans, executive director of the nonprofit Forest Stewards Guild, before adding that any future fire season “is unlikely to be this good.”

“In some ways, we got lucky,” he said.

The National Interagency Fire Center reports that since Jan. 1, there have been nearly 44,000 wildfires that burned more than 4.5 million acres of land across the U.S. That compares to more than 50,000 fires that covered more than 8 million acres at the same time last year.

A Forest Service spokeswoman said the drop in fires this year is due in part to cooler temperatures in the Southwest, increased snowpack in the Northwest and more precipitation in the Southeast.

That allowed the Forest Service to avoid resorting this year to “fire borrowing,” which it has been forced to do in 13 of the last 17 years.

Fire borrowing describes the practice of pulling funds from unrelated Forest Service projects around the U.S. after the agency has exhausted its main and reserve funding to contain or extinguish fires. In Arizona, for example, fire borrowing in the past has affected projects ranging from forest maintenance to trails to habitat for the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog.

But lawmakers and experts hope fire borrowing will become a thing of the past. Beginning this year, the departments of Agriculture and the Interior will be able to tap a separate $2.25 billion fund to continue firefighting once the Forest Service’s $1 billion main suppression fund has been exhausted. That fund is scheduled to grow by $100 million a year for the next seven years.

Arizona lawmakers welcomed the so-called “fire-funding fix,” even as they said longer-term solutions are needed.

Ben Goldey, spokesman for the Western Caucus, said the caucus chairman, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Prescott, supports “any measure” to improve land management.

“The Forest Service needs flexibility and the proper tools to manage overgrown forests and brush lands that help fuel catastrophic wildfires,” Goldey said. “Fire borrowing is the unfortunate result of years of failed forestry policies, diverting much-needed funds for wildfire suppression.”

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, said increased funding for fire suppression is always welcome, but he is not sure the fix is a long-term solution. He said other federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, should shoulder more the cost of wildfires.

“These are natural catastrophes that we should respond to and not be robbing the Forest Service budget of other things,” he said.

While fires were down nationally, Arizona has seen nearly twice as much fire activity this year as last, according to Tiffany Davila, public affairs officer for the state Department of Forestry and Fire Management.

She said heavy monsoons in late 2018 spurred plant growth and pushed back this year’s monsoon season. But the wildfires have since caught up, burning around 365,000 acres have burned in Arizona in 2019 – nearly twice the acreage that burned at the same point last year.

“We’re starting to see drought conditions affect the state again,” she said.

Bryan Henry, a meteorologist with the National Interagency Fire Center, said the state’s current dry conditions, if they continue, could lead to a more active fire season in 2020.

“We’re not seeing a whole lot of precipitation coming to the southwest over the next couple of months, so that could be a little bit of a concern as we head into the fire season next year with the vegetation starting out a little bit on the drier side,” Henry said.

Building in Disaster-Prone Areas

For rural San Diegans, neighborhood design and building can make a world of difference in an emergency.

Harmony Grove Drive winds through the community it’s named after. The road is the main road in and out of Elfin Forest Harmony Grove. Proposed developments would add over 700 homes along the areas’ escape route. (Kailey Broussard/News21)

As officials and developers eye real estate in rural areas as solutions to the area’s housing crises, some residents fear increasingly dense neighborhoods will put them and their families in danger when — not if — the next wildfire burns. Many of these photos originally appeared in a News21 project by Anna Huntsman and Jake Steinberg, along with more pictures and contributed reporting by Ellen O’Brien.

Click pictures for caption information.

Lali Mitchell — Harmony Grove, Calif.

The Cocos Fire completely destroyed Lali Mitchell’s home in rural California. Now living adjacent to her old property, Mitchell views proposed developments near her as a “death trap.”

Allyson Watson and Family — Valley Center, Calif.

When they were told to evacuate during the 2003 Paradise Fire, Allyson Watson and her family were ready to go. However, after two of the cars in which they were evacuating crashed. Watson’s sister, Ashleigh Roach, died at 16, and Watson suffered burns on over 80 percent of her body. The family has since turned to advocacy, hoping to get through to even just one person of the dangers of wildfires.

Van Collinsworth — Santee, Calif.

A longtime California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection volunteer, Van Collinsworth walked us showed us the proposed site of Fanita Ranch, a development approved in Santee.

The Hartmans — Elfin Forest, Calif.

Some five years after her family’s garage burned down in the 2014 Cocos fire, Angelique Hartman is weary of new development near her neighborhood that would call for “shelter in place” procedures in case of fire. “The idea of actually asking families to stay in place, to shelter in place, is absurd,” she said. “It is human instinct to leave as soon as you see a threat coming. You’re not going to sit there for a moment’s notice — you’re going to get out as quickly as you can.”